This war has already changed. Near-stalemate on the front lines, exchange of strikes on civilian infrastructure (Ukraine made to Belgorod what Russia made to Kiev). It‘s a nuclear war without nukes, aiming at strategic defeat without advancing armies. And Russia definitely has more resources for it.

>It‘s a nuclear war without nukes

No, it's not. Even Ukrainians rarely target civilians.

A few days ago Ukraine knocked out central heating infrastructure in Belgorod, a regional capital with 350k people, which is unlikely to be repaired until spring. Two civilians repairing it from previous strikes were killed. Whether this is rare or not, it doesn’t change anything about what I said about changing character of the war: both sides largely gave up on trying to win on the battlefield and now attack energy infrastructure of each other, putting pressure on civilian population.

Targeting dual-purpose infrastructure is not the same as targeting civilians. The infra can be repaired, people cannot be resurrected.

When you knock out primary energy source in a large city instead of attacking military consumers, it has one goal - terror. Most people suffering from it will be civilians. There will likely be deaths. Look at the recent terrorist attack in Berlin by far left extremists: blackout of a single district resulted in at least one known direct casualty. How many people will die of hypothermia or inability to get help being locked in a high rise residential building? This is happening now in many places in Ukraine as well as in border regions of Russia. I do think it’s the same as targeting civilians directly.

>When you knock out primary energy source in a large city instead of attacking military consumers, it has one goal - terror.

Not if that city's industry is contributing to the war effort.

>Most people suffering from it will be civilians. There will likely be deaths.

You can say that about Western sanctions on Russia too. How many people have died because of a single MRI scanner or cancer drug that couldn't be bought by a Russian hospital?

Was it the "nuclear war without nukes" since the day the West imposed blanket sanctions on Russian economy?

Or did that "nuclear war without nukes" started in 2014-2015 when the Ukraine cut electricity and water supply to Crimea? "It has one goal - terror", right?

I really don’t understand your point. Are you questioning the choice of metaphor?

Ukraine cutting supply of electricity and water to Crimea did demonstrate the attitude of the Ukrainian government to people it considered once their citizen. It obviously wasn’t a part of the current chapter of the war.

>Are you questioning the choice of metaphor?

Yes, there is nothing like 'nuclear war without nukes' that is happening here. And I was trying to demonstrate that your logic seem to lead to conclusion that the 'nuclear war without nukes' started in 2014.

>to people it considered once their citizen

It is still considering them Ukrainian citizens.

Do you realize that it’s just figure of speech, not the core argument?

My argument is that you can't bring strategic defeat without leveling cities or utterly destroying the power generation and electric grid. And that's not what is happening in the Ukraine or even Belgorod for that matter

In this war strategic victory is not the destruction of the state, but the control over development trajectory of the rival for the foreseeable future. Russian objective is and was not to annex entire Ukraine, but to ensure that it does not become menacing part of NATO infrastructure (they are surprisingly content with Ukraine joining EU). This is political goal and thus can be pursued through hybrid warfare, which includes psychological pressure on Ukrainian population, to ensure that current administration will loose political support and will be pressured into a peace deal on terms favorable for Russia. Ukraine does the same to achieve the opposite goal, but of course with much less success.

The whole story with territorial question is part of this: possible peace settlement could include just splitting Donbas region on the current front line, so that Putin could claim victory and Ukraine could just say they did what they could. But Russia wants more, they need Donbas in original borders, which is unacceptable to Ukraine. Why? Because if this question will be settled in the peace deal, it may open Ukraine eventually path to NATO. They want to create permanent tension the same way as it happened to Georgia, deferring the final settlement by a hundred years (see Taiwan as an example, which occupies China for decades).

>In this war strategic victory is not the destruction of the state, but the control over development trajectory of the rival for the foreseeable future.

No, it wouldn't be victory, it would be compromise. And the Ukraine isn't Russia's rival, it's just cannon fodder for the West.

>they are surprisingly content with Ukraine joining EU

Kremlin says that. Doesn't have to be true.

>which is unacceptable to Ukraine

Why is it unacceptable to the Ukraine?

I see why it's unacceptable for current regime in Kiev because they can't just say "we actually don't need Donbass, never mind hundreds of thousands lives we wasted defending it".

They do target civilians. It is just not convenient to show it in the western sources, so you don't know about it.

However, it is true that they do not do it on the scale Israel is doing.

They do, but rarely. And I'm Russian, I don't depend on Western sources.

> Even getting the currently occupied land back is mostly optional.

That's only true in the short term.

If Russia gets out of the war with Ukraine with territory gains, that only serves as incentive to start up again after Russia can regroup. After all, Putin's stated long-term goal is to take the entire country (among others) and restore the USSR.

Of course, taking back the occupied land is also easier said than done, as it would severely weaken Putin domestically to have expended all these resources and lives for nothing. There's no way he can allow that.

Both countries are in a catch-22.

> After all, Putin's stated long-term goal is to take the entire country (among others) and restore the USSR.

This was never a stated goal.

> "I have said many times that the Russian and Ukrainian people are one nation, in fact. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours [...] But you know we have an old parable, an old rule: wherever a Russian soldier steps, it is ours."

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/6/27/putin-confirms-...

I’m well aware of this quote. It does not imply that there was at any moment of time a goal to seize the entire Ukraine or to restore USSR.

That they sent special forces to Kyiv to take over the government on the first days of the invasion is not implication?

Is Venezuela US state now or not?

Also, looking at Russian track record specifically, is Georgia, which was militarily defeated in 2008, part of Russia? Did they formally annex Abkhazia or Transnistria? Does Lukashenko report to Putin?

There is the issue that Russia tends to attack weak countries. The Baltic countries are small and also something Russia would like to have. But part of NATO.

Ukraine was seen as easy to take over. But that was clearly a wrong assessment.

>Russia's military force currently relies on men willing to die for money.

And Ukrainian military force currently relies on kidnapping men on the street and dispatching them to the front line after minimal training.[0][4]

The borders of the Ukraine are closed for any man of conscription age - they can't get out.[1]

You can watch the videos with logos of Ukrainian telegram channels and see how it happens[2][3]. Imagine yourself in their place.

[0] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-recruitment-army/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_conscription_crisis#...

[2] https://busification.org/

[3] https://t.me/busification

[4] https://busification.org/article